Federal Judge Hesitant to Dismiss Minnesota SNAP Funding Lawsuit
A federal judge hesitated to dismiss Minnesota's challenge over SNAP funding threats by the government.
Why it matters: The case tests limits on judicial review of federal agency actions and impacts federal-state funding dynamics. Legal practitioners should watch how courts handle coercive funding threats under administrative law.
- On July 28, 2026, a federal judge questioned if threats to withhold SNAP funding constitute final agency action subject to court review.
- The federal government argued such threats are not final agency actions and thus not judicially reviewable.
- Minnesota claims the threats coercively affect its SNAP program administration, warranting judicial scrutiny.
- Attorney General Keith Ellison called the federal government's stance an unconstitutional overreach of spending authority.
On July 28, 2026, a federal judge expressed hesitation about dismissing Minnesota's lawsuit challenging the federal government's threats to withhold Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding. The judge questioned whether these threats qualify as "final agency action" — a requirement for judicial review under administrative law. The federal government contended these threats were not final actions and therefore not reviewable.[courthousenews.com]
Minnesota argued the threats have a coercive effect that impacts the state’s administration of SNAP benefits, justifying judicial intervention. Attorney General Keith Ellison criticized the federal government’s stance: "The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to make spending decisions, and it was absurd for Donald Trump to pretend that five words buried in an obscure federal regulation overrode the Constitution."[ag.state.mn.us]
This dispute fits into a broader pattern of friction between Minnesota and the federal administration over federal funding conditions and regulatory compliance. For example, in July 2026, the Trump administration deferred over $1 billion in Medicaid payments to Minnesota and California over alleged fraud and noncompliance.[washingtonpost.com]
Other recent rulings involving Minnesota and the federal government have rejected attempts to coerce state officials or rescind funds improperly, highlighting ongoing scrutiny of federal regulatory overreach.[washingtonpost.com] [law360.com]
The pending litigation's outcome will influence how courts interpret the finality of agency actions when federal authorities threaten to withhold or condition funds, a significant issue for states reliant on federal programs like SNAP.
By the numbers:
- July 28, 2026 — Date a judge hesitated to dismiss Minnesota’s SNAP funding lawsuit
- $1 billion — Medicaid payments deferred by Trump administration to Minnesota and California in July 2026
- $243 million — Medicaid funding Minnesota sought to protect in related March 2026 lawsuit
Yes, but: While the judge hesitated, it remains unclear whether courts will ultimately consider such funding threats as final agency actions suitable for judicial review; precedent here is unsettled.
What's next: Further hearings and rulings are expected as Minnesota pursues judicial review of the funding threats, with possible wider implications for federal administrative authority over state funding programs.